Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO
This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0239, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This
EPA is approving into the SO
The SIP is being amended to reflect a change in ownership of the facility and the emissions units that are subject to SIP conditions. The Administrative Order currently approved into the SIP was issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc. The emission units previously owned by Federal Hoffman, Inc. are now owned by two companies, Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman Enclosures. The SIP revision rescinds the Administrative Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc. and replaces it with Title I SIP Conditions included in the Air Emission Permit No. 00300155–001, for Hoffman Enclosures, and Permit No. 00300156–003, for Federal Cartridge Company, which serve as joint Title I/Title V documents.
Federal Cartridge Company is a manufacturer of small arms, shotgun, rimfire and centerfire ammunitions. The facility currently owns the majority of emissions units that are subject to SO
Hoffman Enclosures manufactures sheet metal electrical enclosures. Hoffman Enclosures previously owned and operated a single emergency diesel generator subject to SIP conditions through the Order issued to Federal Hoffman, Inc. This unit has been decommissioned and is no longer in use, resulting in a reduction in SO
On December 28, 2007, MPCA issued an Air Emission Permit No. 00300156–003 to Federal Cartridge Company. The permit is a joint Title I/Title V document. The main emissions from the facility are nitrogen oxides (NO
On January 31, 2008, MPCA issued an Air Emission Permit No. 00300155–001 to Hoffman Enclosures. The permit is a joint Title I/Title V document. The main emissions from the facility are VOCs and HAPs. The permit limits emissions of the facility such that the facility is classified as a non-major source under federal New Source Review. The facility is part of the SIP to reach attainment of SO
MPCA published public notices for the Federal Cartridge Company and Hoffman Enclosures actions on November 27, 2007, and December 20, 2007, respectively. No comments were received during the comment period which ended on January 22, 2008. In the public notices, MPCA stated it would hold a public hearing if one were requested during the comment period. This follows the alternative public participation process EPA approved on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited types of SIP revisions that the public has shown little interest in, a public hearing is not automatically required. If anyone requests a public hearing during the comment period, MPCA will hold a public hearing. Because no one requested a public hearing, MPCA did not hold a public hearing for these SIP revisions.
SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in state-issued permits are not Federally-enforceable because the permits expire. MPCA then issued permanent Administrative Orders to culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
MPCA's consolidated permitting regulations, which EPA approved into the state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term “Title I condition” which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control measures remain permanent. A “Title I condition” is defined as “any condition based on source-specific determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.” The rule also states that “Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the other conditions of the permit.” Further, “any Title I condition shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.”
MPCA has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as “Title I conditions,” therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.
Federal Hoffman, Inc., owned units included in the SO
A modeling analysis conducted for the Federal Hoffman facility SIP revision showed that the majority of the SO
Ambient SO
SO
EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota SO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2009. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.
(d) * * *